MORTON TEMPLE ASSOCIATION, INC., Plаintiff-Appellee, v. THE DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE et al., Defendants-Appellants.
Third District No. 3-86-0616
Appellate Court of Illinois, Third District
July 28, 1987
Rehearing denied August 28, 1987
158 Ill. App. 3d 794 | 511 N.E.2d 892
William L. Turner, of Shelbyville, Thomas Krieg, of Morton, and Thomas E. Brannigan, of Chicago, for appellee.
JUSTICE STOUDER delivered the opinion of the court:
OPINION
This appeal concerns the determination of defendant Illinois De
Pursuant to section 19.7 of the Illinois Revenue Code (
On appeal, the Department contends that the plaintiff failed to prove that it was entitled to a charitable tax exemption. Specifically, the Department argues that plaintiff is not a charitablе organization and does not use the property in question exclusively for charitable purposes.
The Revenue Act exempts from taxation “[a]ll property of institutions of public charity, [and] all property of beneficent and charitable organizations *** when such property is actually and exclusively used for such charitable or bеneficent purposes, and not leased or otherwise used with a view to profit.” (
The first step in determining whether an organization is charitable is to consider the provisions of its charter. (Rotary International v. Paschen (1958), 14 Ill. 2d 480, 153 N.E.2d 4.) In thе instant case the plaintiff‘s charter, which was amended in 1982, sets forth the purpose of the corporation. The charter states that the plaintiff is or
The plaintiff‘s income and expense statement for 1982 shows the plaintiff‘s income to be $10,455.80, with expenses at $8,640.50. The figures do not indicate any amount being distributed for charitable projects. In addition, the record does not indicate that any charitable grоup or organization outside of the Masonic organizations used the property during 1982. Incidental acts of charity by an organization will not be enough to establish that organization as charitable. The use of its property must be exclusively for charitable purposes. (Cook County Masonic Temple Association v. Department of Revenue (1982), 104 Ill. App. 3d 658, 432 N.E.2d 1240.) Examining the record we find that the plaintiff‘s primary purpose is to own the property and maintain the building for the use of Masonic Lodge No. 352 and the chap
The plaintiff argues that this case is identical to Cook County Masonic Temple Association v. Department of Revenue (1982), 104 Ill. App. 3d 658, 432 N.E.2d 1240. That case held that the temples were primarily used to raise funds for charitable activities, all other uses being incidental. The plaintiff‘s argument is incorrect. Each temple is used fоr the periodic meetings of the individual organization that owns it. Thus, the determination of whether certain property is exempt from taxation requires the consideration оf the particular factual situation presented. (Evangelical Hospital Association v. Novak (1984), 125 Ill. App. 3d 439, 465 N.E.2d 986.) The activities of the plaintiffs do not conform with the declarations of its charter. Thus, we conclude that the plaintiff is not a charitable organization and should not be exempt from paying property taxes in 1982.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the circuit court of Tazewell County is reversed and the cause is remanded with directions to reinstate the Department of Revenue‘s order.
Reversed and remanded.
SCOTT, J., concurs.
JUSTICE WOMBACHER, dissenting:
I respectfully dissent from the opinion filed by my brethren. I do so because I believe the case is identical to Cook County Masonic Temple Association v. Department of Revenue (1982), 104 Ill. App. 3d 658, 432 N.E.2d 1240. In this case the amended articles of incorporation are essentially the same as those of the Cook County Masonic Temple Association, and therefore the decision of the Illinois Appellate Court рrovides a sound basis for the doctrine of stare decisis.
The court in Cook County Masonic Temple Association stated:
“The parties agree that the properties in question were owned by charitable organizations within the meaning of the statute. Thе charter of each Masonic organization states that its primary purpose and activity is to do charitable works.
The dispute in this case involves whether the temples were
used exclusively for charitable purposes. ‘Exсlusively used’ has been held to mean that the primary use of the property must be charitable. Though the property has other incidental uses, it will still qualify for the exemption as long as those uses are not for profitable purposes. People ex rel. Nordlund v. Association of the Winnebago Home for the Aged (1968), 40 Ill. 2d 91, 237 N.E.2d 533. The Department argues that the рrimary use of the temples was to provide a meeting place for the Masons to carry on the ideals and morals of Masonry, which is not a charitable purposе. Plaintiffs argue that the temples were primarily used to raise funds for the Masons’ charitable activities, and all other uses were incidental. We agree with the Masons.” Cook County Masonic Temple Association v. Department of Revenue (1982), 104 Ill. App. 3d 658, 660-61; 432 N.E.2d 1240, 1242-43.
So do I.
